Hi Kenneth:
KENNETH:
Platt, Why you say our Intellect is more Dynamic than an
eucalyptus tree putting ( moral ) between quotes ? Do you mean
by this that both are synonyms ? I don 't think so !
PLATT:
Yes. The more Dynamic the better. The intellectual level is more
Dynamic than the bio-level and therefore more moral.
KENNETH
Pirsig continues: First, there were moral codes....supremacy....etc
IMO, and not only there ( and not to my surprise though), is Pirsig
not a little bit of the Right !?
PLATT:
If you mean Pirsig favors capitalism and free enterprise over
socialism and controlled markets, I agree.
KENNETH:
Other species have no " rights " other than those we grant...
Dangerous argument !
We can take an analogy...to show how dangerous this is...
Also to PzEph, same argument here....is it moral to kill aids !?
Follow me on this one,
I think it is more moral to keep the welfare of the people in mind.
Killing the germs like the aids virus should be the consequence of
that process, not the other way round. Killing the germ must not
be the goal , it is eventually that in the end I know, but in the first
place, we must care about the people already infected. Healing
people must be the goal, not killing the germ ! That is moral ! The
other way round is not ! You ' forget ' about the people if you do that
! Not very noble, not very moral !!
Analogy,
Saying the killing of all the Jews was just a consequence of a
social process in Germany would not be moral wouldn 't it !? But
when processes like that comes down to some ' humanfactor ' we
all suddenly change. We must stay ferm and be consequent !!
PLATT:
I wouldn�t say that the aids virus and Jews are on the same moral
level. Humans take moral precedence over germs. That was
Pirsig�s point in setting up the different levels with the inorganic
the least moral and intellect the most within a total moral order of
reality. That way you get a rational rather than an emotional or
religious basis for determining right and wrong.
KENNETH:
If the goal is to kill the germ, you disgard the interest of the
patient. The patient must come first. Like in Germany during WO
II, solving the social problem should have come first, not the
killing of the Jews and others. But Hitler thought it would be better
the other way round. In fact, in such a way he did weaken the
society and all the levels supporting that society.
PLATT:
Didn�t Hitler believe the �social problem� in Germany was the
Jews?
KENNETH:
Another exmaple,
Anti-Biotics. Kill the germ !!
We invent a lot of anti- biotics in order to kill diseases and in order
to treat patients. But, nowadays, anti- biotics doesn 't work
properly, that due to the extensive use of it, viruses become
immuun to it.
It was moral to kill the germ in order to heal the patient, but we lost
our moral background. The goal is now ' kill the germ ', not the
welfare of the patient. In the end he will be cured, now still.
Killing the germ should be the consequence of anti- biotics, not its
goal !
PLATT:
I see no moral difference between saving the patient or killing the
germ. They are both sides of the same coin.
KENNETH:
My point is, I don 't buy that moral stuff.
Moral is a human trait, and saying that the MOQ has no qualms,
morally, for human intellect to destroy other species so long as
the levels which "support" intellect remain stable and viable, is
IMO below all marks. Here, IMO, you give the Right all the
arguments it needs to eliminate all not- supporting- groups ' of
society. The Right will eventually destroy other " species ", like the
Jews and the Right will see to it that all other supporting levels
are NOT weakened in the process.
PLATT:
According to Pirsig, moral is more than a human trait. Morality is
reality. The laws of nature at the inorganic and biological level are
moral laws. The laws of society are moral laws. The laws of logic
and mathematics at the intellectual level are moral laws. You
appear to limit morality to social morality alone and consider it
solely a human phenomena that deals with interpersonal
relationships. Well, you�re not alone. That�s the way most people
define morality. That�s what makes Pirsig�s expanded view of
morality so interesting: there�s nothing quite like it in all
philosophy. As for giving the Right or any other group an argument
for destroying Jews or any other group of fellow human beings,
the MOQ does just the opposite. To destroy humans is to destroy
the capacity for intellect, the highest good in Pirsig�s moral order.
Thus, to destroy humans is the most immoral act of all.
KENNETH:
Beauty !? The morality of preserving social, biological and
inorganic value solely on account of their beauty Platt !? What if
the Right find Jews ugly !? The Right will bring arguments forward
about what is beauty and what is not. You are on a dangerous
path here. Think about the consequences !!
PLATT:
There�s always the danger that any political group. Right or Left,
can twist philosophy to serve its own ends. Hitler used Nietzsche.
Stalin (who killed more innocents than Hitler) used Marx. Priests
used �caring about others� as preached in Bible to justify the
Inquisition. That�s why Pirsig wrote: To �put philosophy in the
service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a
lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one.� (LILA, Chap.
29.)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
